The death penalty in itself is a denial of the right to life and a violation of human rights. When applied to the juvenile population, it contradicts the overall purpose of the Juvenile Justice System. The mission statement of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) states that it “provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. The OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families.” The name alone claims justice and prevention, while treatment and rehabilitation are the main focus within the statement. Imposing the death penalty on any juvenile loses this purpose. Exemption for individuals under the age of eighteen for reasons of stated laws, discrimination, and recent medical research would allow juveniles an opportunity to conform to the guidelines provided by the OJJDP wit

Napoleon Beazley was sentenced to death in 1995 for a murder, which he committed at the age of seventeen. In his final written statement, in 2002, he wrote: “The act I committed to put me here was not just heinous, it was senseless. But the person that committed the act is no longer here – I am. I’m sorry that John Lettig died. And I’m sorry that it was something in me that caused all of this to happen to begin with. Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice. Tonight, we tell our children that in some cases, killing is right…No one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious.”

Most stated have confined to the law that juveniles have not yet reached an age of maturity or sufficient judgment, and do not until the documented age of eighteen. Not until then may they vote, purchase cigarettes, execute a will, enter into marriage or other contracts, or agree to donate their organs. While an individual under the age of eighteen cannot qualify to serve on a jury, by law, this same juvenile is qualified to be tried by a jury. All of this is under the assumption that they lack responsibility, yet are expected to be completely in control of their actions and judgments while engaging in criminal activity, and then take full responsibility for their behavior. This practice is a completely illogical contradiction of our laws.

Each of these reasons give logical argument as to why there should be an abolishment of the death penalty for juveniles within the United States. It’s all about human rights and the privilege of the child.

Imposing the death penalty on juveniles is an outright violation of treaties and protocols, which were created to mainta

Some topics in this essay:
Prevention OJJDP, John Lettig, University Pennsylvania, Supreme Court, Convention August, Rights Child, Social Council, Napoleon Beazley, Amendment Constitution, Mental Health, death penalty, eighteen age, age eighteen, below eighteen age, juvenile justice, below eighteen, imposing death, human rights, � article, section 5, imposing death penalty, persons below eighteen, sentenced death, committed persons below, death penalty juveniles,